Well Bama, take the example earlier - "All men are created equal". It was pointed out that at the time it was written, blacks weren't considered "men". I assume you believe that they are today. So therefore, evidentally, future laws (or beliefs) served to "evolve" the meaning of the DoI.

The reason we have an income tax is that the 16th ammendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1913 granting the feds the power to levy taxes on incomes. Now I will grant that the definition of incomes has changed greatly over the years, but at least the ammendment process was used. It was generally understood that we had a constitution and it was the blueprint for how our society functioned.

Javal, Surely you do not think the Declaration of Independence as a document has evolved simply because the preamble now applies exactly as written?

There is no sens of fighting any longer no how for we are done gone up the spout -
the Confederacy is done whipped it is sensless to deny it any longer.
-Private John Harper
8th Georgia
to his brother 9 September 1863

Forgive me, Ed. I respect your opinions about the two documents, but mine differ a bit.

I feel that the DoI especially is not static document, nor was it written to be that way. A document that is historical is a document that has revelence, across the ages and phases of time and society. That's what makes the document so important, BECAUSE it can be applied across time. True, I agree that WE have changed since it was written, but I can hardly believe that the creators and writer of the DoI, forward thinkers all, would think that their new country wouldn't change--it is that change that made George III irrelevent to them.

I also agree that we as a nation have gotten far afield from some of the "anchor statements" in the DoI. Other historical documents, from the Magna Carta through works of Shakespeare and beyond, are either viewed through that generation's eyes and made relevent, or become obsolete. It's true that many differing perspectives of a document like the DoI create just as many passionate opinions, which is what I believe a document like that SHOULD do. The basis ideas contained in them should be not challenged but seriously considered, over and over, as support for what our country believes at its foundations. I think those last three statements can be applied to both sides of the Civil War.

I sound like a social studies teacher!

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just trying to maybe clarify it for myself.

IMHO, the Declaration of Independence was Jefferson's legal brief defending the American Revolution to the world. The Constitution is the attempt to put the themes of the Declaration into law.

Or, as I once heard, the Declaration is the music and the Constitution is the lyrics.

Regarding 'laws' concerning taxes, et al, remember that there are laws and then there are the regulations implementing those laws. The one is written by the legislative branch (Congress) and the other by the executive branch (the President)...

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just trying to maybe clarify it for myself.

Highly admirable! When it comes down to what those guys had on their minds, I get lost. I like to believe that they were prescient enough to know that they couldn't know what tomorrow would bring. But there were things they knew. They knew that it was and still is human nature -- somebody is going to try to grab power.

So later, when these guys or those very much like them turned their attention to an agreement of how they chose to be collectively cooperative,

Ever stop to think about what we would be like today without those Washingtons and Jeffersons and Madisons and Adamses? And those dozens of others whose names we can't recollect? That there wasn't a Josef or an Adolph or a Karl among them?